Dismissed

U. Anjaneyulu v. The Deputy Registrar of Coop. Societies/

Telangana HC27 Jun 2013WA/471/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common judgment dismisses two writ appeals filed by an auction purchaser against a single Judge order affirming a Cooperative Tribunal decision. The Tribunal set aside a sale due to tampering in the sale proclamation regarding property extent and boundaries.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals dismissed; miscellaneous petitions also dismissed; no order for costs.

U. Anjaneyulu Vs The Deputy Registrar of Coop… — Cooperative Societies | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

¶3

(DATED 27-06-2013)

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶6

¶7

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶8

WA No.471 OF 2012

¶9

Between:

¶10

U. Anjaneyulu ..Appellant And

¶11

The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Regional Manager, AP House Fed., Door No.7/605, II Floor, Parameswara Complex, Jayanagar Colony, Apsara Road, Kadapa and others ... Respondents

¶12

WA No.472 OF 2012

¶13

Between: The Yemmiganur Co-op. House Building Society Limited, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District ..Appellant And

¶14

U. Anjaneyulu and others ... Respondents

¶15

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶16

¶17

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶18

WA Nos.471 & 472 of 2012

¶19

COMMON JUDGMENT: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana )

¶20

Both these writ appeals are filed against the order dated 2302-2012 passed in WP No.8908 of 2007 by the learned single Judge of this Court. WA No.471 & 472 of 2012 are preferred by

¶21

writ petitioner-auction purchaser and the 2^nd respondent in the said writ petition, respectively. Since both the appeals are directed against the said order passed in the writ petition, they are heard and being disposed of by this common judgment by adverting to facts in WA No.471 of 2012.

¶22

2. Facts stated are:-The appellant-writ petitioner is the auction

¶23

purchaser. It is stated that the 4^th respondent obtained a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from 2^nd respondent-Yemmiganur Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District. As she failed to clear the debt, the 2^nd respondent initiated proceedings for recovery of the said amount before the

¶24

competent authority and a recovery certificate was issued for the amount of principal due and interest thereon. Since that was not complied with, execution proceedings were initiated before the 3^rd respondent-Co-operative Sub-Registrar/Recovery Officer by filing EP No.112/1999-2000. It is stated that the property mortgaged by

¶25

the 4^th respondent was put to sale and the bid was knocked in favour of the appellant-writ petitioner and sale certificate was also

¶26

issued. The said sale was questioned by the 4^th respondent before the Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad, on the ground that though the mortgaged property viz., H.No.6/7, Car Street, Yemmiganur, admeasuring 236 square yards was shown as the property to be sold, only an extent of 73.33 square yards was put to sale by tampering with the entries in the prescribed form. It is was also stated that the 3^rd respondent has committed irregularities. By order dated 31-03-2006, the 5^th respondent-Cooperative Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the 4^th respondent on the ground that the auction is vitiated on several grounds, one

¶27

being the correction of extent of the property from 236 square yards to 73.33 square yards in the prescribed form and also boundaries of the plot. Aggrieved by the said order of the Cooperative Tribunal, the auction purchaser filed writ petition. Learned single Judge, by the impugned order while affirming the order of the Co-operative Tribunal dismissed the writ petition observing that the sale is vitiated on account of failure on the part

¶28

of the 3^rd respondent to follow the prescribed procedure. Aggrieved by the said order passed in the writ petition, these writ appeals are filed.

¶29

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material on record.

¶30

4. It is clear from the order of the Co-operative Tribunal as well as the order the learned single Judge that nowhere in the sale proclamation, the extent was mentioned as 73.33 square yards nor there was any indication that only a part of the property, out of

¶31

236 square yards would be put to sale. Interpolations were made in the format prescribed for sale by correcting the extent and the

¶32

description of the property. It was also observed by the learned

¶33

single Judge that the sale is vitiated for not following the procedure prescribed either under Order 21 CPC or Rule 52 of the

¶34

AP Co-operative Societies Rules.

¶35

5. In the circumstances, we do not find any ground to come to a different view than the view taken by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, affirming the order passed by the Cooperative Tribunal in setting aside the sale conducted by the 3^rd respondent. The writ appeals are accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these matters shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

________________________ N.V.RAMANA,J

¶37

______________________________

¶38

Dated: 27-06-2013 NRG

¶39

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶40

¶41

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶42

WA Nos.471 & 472 of 2012 NRG 27-06-2013

U. Anjaneyulu v. The Deputy Registrar of Coop. Societies/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U. Anjaneyulu v. The Deputy Registrar of Coop. Societies/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Laxmi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl

Premchand Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal

The Joint Collector Vs P.Lokeswara Rao

The Yemmiganur Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Vs U. Anjaneyulu

D. Suneela Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Ganji Vishnu Murthy Vs Govt. of Andhra Pradesh